Michael Lloyd/The OregonianPortland police Chief Rosie Sizer Police Chief Rosie Sizer is one of more than a dozen Portland Police Bureau members whose eligibility date for retirement may be six months later than had been anticipated.

That's because the officers were laid off for about 180 days back in 1985 because of budget constraints and took other city jobs or non-sworn police jobs before they were hired back by the police bureau.

The officers were led to believe that their time away from the bureau would be counted as time accrued for retirement, said Sgt. Scott Westerman, president of the rank-and-file union, the Portland Police Association.

But staff of the Portland Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund say they can't find any documentation to support that.

Because the officers at the time were working in non-sworn city positions, they were not members of the unique public safety retirement fund, but started to contribute to the Oregon Public Employee Retirement System, or PERS.

"They were outside of the FPDR system, and they could not accrue into the pension," said Linda Jefferson, executive director of the fund. "They could not file a claim under the disability system, because they were not considered active members at that time."

Jefferson said her staff has searched the fund's records for any reference to pension accrual for these officers.

Fifteen to 18 officers are affected; two have retired with the questionable six months added toward their years of service, Jefferson said.

"We've done a lot of research to try to find any documentation, any board minutes, any ordinances that would show some legal cause that would allow these individuals to accrue into the program, and we haven't found anything," Jefferson said.

The union isn't resting with that answer.

"They were told by the fund at the time they'd be taken care of. They've been told that for the last 24.5 years," Westerman said. "All of a sudden, they were told their retirement date is moved back six months. So, let's figure out a way to fix this."

Sgt. Wayne Kuechler, one of the bureau members affected, says, "There were commitments made that we would not be penalized for the time if we took other city positions. ... I simply want credit for all of my employment time as was promised, not just some."

Officers are eligible for retirement at age 50 if they have 25 years of service with the bureau.

One offer from the affected officers is to pay whatever it costs, in 1985 dollars, to make up for the 185 days they were working in jobs outside of the public safety retirement system, so their anticipated retirement date isn't delayed, Westerman said.

Jefferson said the fund has asked the officers to provide documentation that their time off from the bureau should be added to their years of service. She said she doesn't expect a final decision to be made until next year.

"As a police officer we can retire relatively young. A six-month delay does not change that," Kuechler said. "I am more concerned with the service credit and being treated fairly."

Sizer, who faced a union vote of no confidence in the past month, had worked for city parking enforcement during the six-month layoff from the police bureau in 1985. She hasn't given any indication she's retiring. But her eligibility date, initially thought to be January 2010, at this point is July 2010.